BEWARE: This is yet another ugly post. (I'm in a bad place, sorry folks!)
In an effort to plan ahead and better examine our future options, I did an online search for real estate listings in Cali, priced for no more than $250,000 in the general L.A. area... even though I know the median home price in L.A. is $600,000 - - I tried anyhow, out of damnable curiosity (and because I'm a glutton for punishment?). And look! Just look at what one can buy for $250,000 in L.A.! What a beauty! [Yes, that was extremely angry sarcasm, most heavily applied.]
And for Burbank, our ultimate destination, located just on the outskirts of the Burbank city limits (which wouldn't get your kids into the Burbank School District), you can expect to pay $400,000 for a 980 sq. ft. home. And to live and own your home within the Burbank School District boundary limits? Well, for 998 sprawling sq. ft., in a home over 40 years old, you'll pay a mere $675,000. Well, you may ask, "How much to buy a cheaper and easier to manage condo in Burbank?" For a 16 year old condo with underground parking, 2 bedrooms and one bath, and no more 920 square feet, try $546,000. Yeah.
Will someone please tell me how any of this makes any sense?
For a non-L.A./ non- California home (and no, it doesn't matter where - I'm interested in pointing out the vast financial disparity here), you can buy something that's less than 5 years old for the same $249,000, and in turn, relish 2,000 sq. feet... that's nearly 4 times larger than the $249,000 L.A. option, and this one's not only more for your dollar, it's in a decent area where you could actually raise your children, who could enjoy some adult-free playtime in a separate playroom or a real backyard, independent of poorly insufficient school recess breaks or the confines of a solitary bedroom.Now using several apartment rental online search engines to find Burbank apt. listings...
Using the parameters of the angel boy-O's school zone boundaries, the best price I found for a non-cracker box apt. was $1900/month... for a ONE bedroom!?! For a 2-bedroom apt. with 1,000 sq. ft., located in an apt. complex within his school zone, we'll still pay over $1900/month. Now if that's the cheapest we can get, and we want to add a couple costly kids to the loot over the next 2-4 years' time? We'll eventually have THREE kids crammed in one bedroom?!? And we'll both be required to work full-time in order to afford any of it... oh, and with the two of us working full-time? That means full-time daycare until the ages of 5 or 6.
The real scenario: Baby #1 shows up and 3 months later, off goes Baby #1 to full-time daycare... Two or so years later, give or take, we have Baby #2 in full-time daycare... and I'll lose my mind. Not kidding.
Burbank Community Life provides a listing of 50 different certified, local child care centers in Burbank. Of those 50 listings, only one openly advertises the admission of children of 18 months of age and no younger... All others, the minimum age listed for admission is 2 years old. I don't know how this can be, but wow!
Back in 2000, the average CA childcare costs for a school age child was nearly $6K/9 months, not including the summer months in which a child may need be enrolled in daycare full-time. How much is it now? I can't find any new numbers...
And it's funny, most available CA state info. regarding average child care costs, they're primarily relative to state welfare child care research reports, and then one 1999 LA Times survey, and a lengthy article titled, Child Care Price Dynamics in California, written in 2003 by the California Public Policy Institute, and um, that's it. Oh, and there are many citations to be found regarding the 10% increase in child care costs experienced in CA between 1998 and 2000. I can't imagine how's it's changed since then... One report stated a family can expect to spend $16,000/year for 'above average' childcare in CA, also stating CA families spend an average of 25% of their income to put just ONE child in daycare... Try 2 kids in full-time daycare and do the math: that's potentially 50% of my income to pay for childcare??? What about 2 babies in full-time daycare = that'd be at least $30,000 per year?!? And I saw one report list $18K/year for infant care in CA...
This isn't the first time I've looked into this stuff. I did some homework in the year I met my honey-man, but I shut it all down, telling myself that I was jumping the gun a bit... also fearing I'd call it all off, otherwise. It's in my nature to plan ahead, rather than tell myself I'll deal with it when the time comes... The real truth is this: The time is coming, nearly upon us within a few months. If we hope to marry later this year, within the next year, we'll be enlarging our family = pregnancy.
Looking even closer at the costs of L.A. living, I've found myself actually trying to talk myself out of wanting any children, telling myself that kids will only complicate things (which is undeniably true) and that kids are costly (which is also undeniably true) and that the financial strain will ultimately strain our relationships with EVERYONE in L.A. (which is absolutely true) - - but this ridiculous effort to change my own mind? It's insane, especially when I've tried it before already, when I was a fresh divorcee and totally burnt out, but it flat out didn't work back then and it's not working now.
We want kids -me, my own; him, some more and with me- but we don't want our kids, which includes the angel boy-O, all living in a tiny 2-bedroom apt., where we'll never know the joy of a backyard or a playroom, or general playtime without the required, direct presence of an adult at all times, unless we pay more than $2400/month to lease a tini-tiny house...?!? That's not the answer. Once we've raised our kids, we'd like to be sure we'll have a roof over our heads too, ya know?
I'm 32 and my honey-man will be 42 soon. Do we even have time for this? - oh, especially when I can't seem to get a *explitives* mere job in L.A., without giving up our only security?
Yah, still depressed.
P.S. If this post seems rather angry, it is.
I couldn't be more frustrated right now.
2 comments:
Wow. This is the post of a woman who is trying to drive herself crazy.
What can I say? There are people here in LA who are living their lives, raising their kids and being happy without owning homes. Yep, they pay high rent but that isn't stopping them from doing what they want to do. I don't know, somehow it all evens out. It's very hard sometimes, but folks do manage.
It seems you see this city as an absolute block to living the life you want to live.
That's pretty scary.
I wish you all the luck in the world.xoxoxo
R
No one could pay me enough money to live in L.A. That being said, I do have friends there and I visit every couple of years. Like recovering mormon said, they rent. Which (as it turned out in two separate earth quake incidents) helped them. But you're right, if you're thinking about your future and building equity that you can someday get out, renting is not a great option.
Why not live in an area that fits your needs? Even if not L.A. The one thing you didn't say in this post was why you have to be in the L.A. area, or why you even have to be in commuting distance of L.A.
Is it an Angel Boy-o custody thing?
Post a Comment